Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!

Corruption / Corrupted player game play

Bored2DeathBored2Death Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
Hello wonderful people I've had a thought.

Corruption has the potential to be an amazing system that completely changes the way player interactions work on a large scale. Currently from what I've seen which is very little, corruption has been presented as just a punishment system in PvP and "the bad" placeholder.

It certainly will fulfill that role as it's been presented, but in my opinion, will be a huge missed opportunity in terms of game play novelty and creating a better atmosphere.

A more interesting system would be if more corrupted players had interactions and quests in the corrupted zones with the objective of spreading/fortifying the corruption. Players that deepened their corruption would advance a corrupted tree that would allow for them to do things like disguise their corrupted player status or forge documents spoofing their citizenship. The corruption could also give players cursed items to hide that could do things like AoE proximity based debuffs or spawn corrupted npcs to attack players/structures in the area.

Players could be given tasks like, but not limited to, creating and selling disguised corrupted consumables / trade goods made from corrupted materials or non-combatant players at a player hub. This could result in things like multi day debuffs for people who consumed them or turning hub NPCs into zombies. Perhaps faulty or sabotaged materials for crafting could be sold to hubs, which for every unit of corrupted materials used in building crafting it would add a % chance for the structural integrity to fail.

A system like this does a number of immensely beneficial things in terms of facilitating the atmosphere the Intrepid studio seems to want to create. Firstly by allowing corrupted players to have negative impacts via the crafting and trading systems you establish the importance of trust and secure supply / trade routes. Will you trust that trench coated Shadowlord that sold you those potions?

It creates opportunities for much more intricate political situations. Lower tier hubs like villages might have to deal with sabotage and infiltration from the corrupted and would put value on players who are able to find them out and put a natural counter pressure on leading hubs gobbling up massive chunks of the a server's player pop if they begin to outperform the rest. A natural game play route is created for players who want to fulfill the villain role adding a dynamic element to the antagonistic force.

Furthermore, I believe a lot of what would be considered toxic pvp behavior would be prevented by having more immersive / beneficial ways for players to express negative energy. Rather than being the annoying troll who spams the global chat or ganks low level players for days, that solo player might be able to play an excellent villain if given the tools by the developers. As a studio pushing for innovation in a long stagnant genre having a unique player - AI coalition as your antagonistic force would be a step towards how mmorpgs will operate in the future.

I'm curious what other people think!
«1

Comments

  • While all these are cool ideas, they go against the goal of the corruption system.

    If you give all these cool options to players if they go corrupt, you're essentially defeating the purpose of it being a deterrent against ganking.

    So if these were to be implemented, I would not tie it to the corruption system per se. I would rather allocate them under social organisation quest lines and rewards. Things like the Thieves' guild, or certain religions and religious organisations etc.
    Sig-ult-2.png
  • Bored2DeathBored2Death Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    I believe this type of game play would have the biggest draw on solo - small group players like myself that are disenfranchised with the industry wide hyper focus on community and cooperation.

    If these ideas or system were implemented under different context that was determinant on community based social organization a result may be deterring the people who would find it most enjoyable. It would also negate the uniqueness to actively having to worry about "the big bad" outside of scripted encounters.

    Having a system that incentivizing players to actively stop corrupted player's actions in order to stop the corruptions short term and long term influence on the server's hubs sounds much more satisfying to me than having the devs put me in xp debt, make my stats go down, and have me drop loot.

    I guess I want there to be in game social dynamic reasons to stop a corrupted player not because corrupted players are sitting ducks you can test your pvp rotation on.
  • George_BlackGeorge_Black Member, Intrepid Pack
    edited March 2021
    The corruption system isn't new. It works great since 2003.
  • Bored2DeathBored2Death Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    Yeah it definitely isn't new and it does work. I just think we've coded kumbaya / tit-for-tat systems to death in the video game landscape. I'm coming to Ashes to try and get away from what's been done. I'd like to see innovation made to the opposition in our digital worlds.

    In all the games I've played there's never really a choice we just watch npcs we have little to no control over carry out a prescripted event. It doesn't impact me when Bob, Hammer of the West joins the dark lord because Bob is a npc and has no choice but to join the dark lord. What interests me is when Sandy gets run out of town by the mayor, kicked from the discord and she sets up shop in the woods nearby and starts hunting villagers for the corrupted god.

    I wonder what the result of the corruption system eventually shifting things like exp reward weights would be. This could function like a more definite citizenship role locking the player into a vampire account for the server. Highly corrupted players would stop getting exp from regular quests or mobs and would only gain exp from killing other players or corruption based interactions.

    Essentially you design the antagonistic force in the game to pick-up and incorporate the players that slip/weave through your communities nets turning them into invaluable creators of emergent game play.
  • George_BlackGeorge_Black Member, Intrepid Pack
    edited March 2021
    What's stopping you from wearing a demonic skin and being the bad guy?

    You do realize that as soon as being bad is system-supported, you will end up with good vs evil, faction based pvp with half the server being "the bad guy" ?
    There wont be few like yourself. It will be half the population
  • It's only purpose isn't just to be a deterrent to ganking. It's to have player enemies since there will be no factions. It's not a good idea to stay in it for long periods of time, but it does cause player interaction. I think the system worked well in Lineage 2 overall. Bounty Hunting added to it actually makes it a nice PvP option for when people get bored in mid to end game.
    zZJyoEK.gif

    U.S. East
  • You can play an antagonist without gaining corruption. You can declare guild wars, raid caravans, attack them in contested zones, etc... all without becoming corrupt.

    I'm starting to think that Intrepid should rename it from "corruption" system to something else. Some people are being drawn to it simply because of its name, when its only purpose is to punish people for killing others for no reason.
  • McShaveMcShave Member
    edited April 2021
    You do realize that as soon as being bad is system-supported, you will end up with good vs evil, faction based pvp with half the server being "the bad guy" ?
    There wont be few like yourself. It will be half the population

    This sounds great to me, where do I sign up? I would love to see wars between corrupted and not corrupted.

    This works exceptionally well imo because corruption in lore is the source of evil, or something evil related. Good vs. Evil, who doesn't like that? And corruption is an opt-in thing, not like other games where you're forced into a faction. Would love to see towns or cities where corrupted players are accepted. Would be like a wild west kinda situation where a strong bandit roles into town. The citizens have to team up against him or let him do what he wants. Corrupted players killing other corrupted players in town just for the fun of it. Sounds great.
  • George_BlackGeorge_Black Member, Intrepid Pack
    McShave wrote: »
    You do realize that as soon as being bad is system-supported, you will end up with good vs evil, faction based pvp with half the server being "the bad guy" ?
    There wont be few like yourself. It will be half the population

    This sounds great to me, where do I sign up? I would love to see wars between corrupted and not corrupted.

    This works exceptionally well imo because corruption in lore is the source of evil, or something evil related. Good vs. Evil, who doesn't like that? And corruption is an opt-in thing, not like other games where you're forced into a faction. Would love to see towns or cities where corrupted players are accepted. Would be like a wild west kinda situation where a strong bandit roles into town. The citizens have to team up against him or let him do what he wants. Corrupted players killing other corrupted players in town just for the fun of it. Sounds great.

    That's like wow.
  • That's like wow.

    The only way that's like wow is that it is an mmorpg and you can fight other players.
  • George_BlackGeorge_Black Member, Intrepid Pack
    McShave wrote: »
    That's like wow.

    The only way that's like wow is that it is an mmorpg and you can fight other players.

    The only way it isnt like wow is that instead of corrupted, the other side is named horde
  • McShave wrote: »
    That's like wow.

    The only way that's like wow is that it is an mmorpg and you can fight other players.

    The only way it isnt like wow is that instead of corrupted, the other side is named horde

    To say horde is "evil" would be wholly inaccurate. They are a complicated alliance of neglected races and cultures who just want a stake in their world. Also my corruption faction idea is opt-in, you can choose to be a corrupted player at any time.
  • McShave wrote: »
    McShave wrote: »
    That's like wow.

    The only way that's like wow is that it is an mmorpg and you can fight other players.

    The only way it isnt like wow is that instead of corrupted, the other side is named horde

    To say horde is "evil" would be wholly inaccurate. They are a complicated alliance of neglected races and cultures who just want a stake in their world. Also my corruption faction idea is opt-in, you can choose to be a corrupted player at any time.

    They are fundamentally a faction of barbarians who only purpose is to start wars and kill as many people who originate in the land they stole as possible. There is nothing not evil about the horde aside from the fact that they are pussies compared to the scourge and original horde.
    zZJyoEK.gif

    U.S. East
  • FuryBladeborneFuryBladeborne Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    edited April 2021
    Yuyukoyay wrote: »
    McShave wrote: »
    McShave wrote: »
    That's like wow.

    The only way that's like wow is that it is an mmorpg and you can fight other players.

    The only way it isnt like wow is that instead of corrupted, the other side is named horde

    To say horde is "evil" would be wholly inaccurate. They are a complicated alliance of neglected races and cultures who just want a stake in their world. Also my corruption faction idea is opt-in, you can choose to be a corrupted player at any time.

    They are fundamentally a faction of barbarians who only purpose is to start wars and kill as many people who originate in the land they stole as possible. There is nothing not evil about the horde aside from the fact that they are pussies compared to the scourge and original horde.

    Are you allowed to attack and kill any player, anywhere in the game (aside from vendor stalls) in wow? No matter where you go, every player around you can potentially attack you at will. The game consequences are likely to be minor for the first few kills as well.

    I guess your trying to say Ashes gameplay is like the wow fantasy storyline even though the actual gameplay choice to fight is not even remotely close to wow.
  • maouwmaouw Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    player flagging corruption =/= corruption spread by the Ancients (though they might be vaguely related lore wise?)

    You only gain corruption from killing someone who is essentially afk. That is not a badass villain at all.
    I wish I were deep and tragic
  • edited April 2021
    maouw wrote: »
    player flagging corruption =/= corruption spread by the Ancients (though they might be vaguely related lore wise?)

    You only gain corruption from killing someone who is essentially afk. That is not a badass villain at all.

    From my understanding as it is currently iterated.
    Combatants and corrupted players will gain corruption for killing (not attacking) non-combatants.
    Non-combatants who attack Combatants will become flagged as Combatants
  • clone63clone63 Member
    edited April 2021
    So defending yourself removes the potential of your attacker being corrupted (punished)?
    That's super weak. You would have to assess if you have any chance of winning the fight and make a proactive decision NOT to fight back if you want that person to have any penalty for their actions against you.

    As a Green player, I get stabbed by Mr.Purple, and of course I don't want to die, so I fight back. Now I'm Purple as well. If I win, I'm standing there Purple, able to be killed by others without consequence for a short time, orrr... I lose, am dead, and they gained no corruption. Am I missing something?

    It actually looks like you're better off alleviating them being corrupted as if you die as a combatant, your death penalties are reduced.
  • @clone63
    there are rulesets and conditions for the flagging that have not been fully explained yet.


    @FuryBladeborne
    yes, just because you are flagged as a non-combatant does not mean you are safe from being attacked. This is where the corruption system comes in.
  • @clone63
    there are rulesets and conditions for the flagging that have not been fully explained yet.
    Attacking your assaulter should not remove your non-combatant status. Aside for groups, that would resolve most issues with being victimized. Simple wild west rules.. You have a right to defend yourself.

    2 people or an extra account would make some pretty exploitative activities. L1 guy and L50 guy in a group... L1 attacks a L45 green unsuspecting guy, who fights back, is now purple. L50 guy pops out of bushes, kills L45, gaining no corruption. There better be more rulesets, lol.
  • bloodprophetbloodprophet Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    Lot's to unpack here. The system will be fine once they test and fine tune to punish unhindered ganking.

    https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Player_corruption
    Most people never listen. They are just waiting on you to quit making noise so they can.
  • clone63 wrote: »
    @clone63
    there are rulesets and conditions for the flagging that have not been fully explained yet.
    Attacking your assaulter should not remove your non-combatant status. Aside for groups, that would resolve most issues with being victimized. Simple wild west rules.. You have a right to defend yourself.

    2 people or an extra account would make some pretty exploitative activities. L1 guy and L50 guy in a group... L1 attacks a L45 green unsuspecting guy, who fights back, is now purple. L50 guy pops out of bushes, kills L45, gaining no corruption. There better be more rulesets, lol.

    exactly, rulesets and conditions not fully explained.

    defending yourself as a non-combatant versus engaging against combatants. There will be some sort of condition to change the players current flagged status. Not all abilities or situations would instantly change your status.

    example:

    players participating in an event such as a caravan quest will be flagged as non-combatants to those not participating.

  • Taleof2CitiesTaleof2Cities Member
    edited April 2021

    exactly, rulesets and conditions not fully explained.

    Even if Steven and Jeffrey have a clear picture of what Corruption in Ashes looks like, they've admitted that the final version of the Corruption system definitely isn't in the game yet.

    That's why it's hard to stop the weekly "this is my version of Corruption" threads like this one.

    In other words, discussing potential rulesets and conditions is at best moot ... until testers can get into the game, try it out for themselves, and send critical feedback back to the devs.
  • edited April 2021

    exactly, rulesets and conditions not fully explained.

    Even if Steven and Jeffrey have a clear picture of what Corruption in Ashes looks like, they've admitted that the final version of the Corruption system definitely isn't in the game yet.

    That's why it's hard to stop the weekly "this is my version of Corruption" threads like this one.

    In other words, discussing potential rulesets and conditions is at best moot ... until testers can get into the game, try it out for themselves, and send critical feedback back to the devs.

    True, with the NDA and unknown variables for these conditions it is as you worded moot.

    But there was mention of the participants in events such as the caravan quests to be flagged differently to non- participants.

    Within the event, the participants would potentially be flagged as combatants to all other participants depending on choice to attack or defend.

    From the outside perspectives to those who are not participating, they would be flagged as non-combatants thus potentially causing corruption to those who get involved that are not officially participating in the caravan event.

    Eventually they will be able to provide more information on the rulesets and conditions for the flagging system and changes involved.
  • maouwmaouw Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    edited April 2021
    My dudes, please read the wiki page.

    You're supposed to fight back if you can.
    > Penalties are less if you lose fighting back, compared to losing as a non-combatant.
    > Penalties are more if you go corrupted, compared to losing as a non-combatant.
    I wish I were deep and tragic
  • Bored2DeathBored2Death Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    I love when people don't read and reply anyway.
  • NagashNagash Member, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    I love when people don't read and reply anyway.

    And I love when people make new threads for topics that have been talked about extensively but looks like we both are missing out
    nJ0vUSm.gif

    The dead do not squabble as this land’s rulers do. The dead have no desires, petty jealousies or ambitions. A world of the dead is a world at peace
  • KarthosKarthos Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    edited April 2021
    Based on my limited knowledge of video games and my less limited, but still not extensive knowledge of psychology, this system looks great on paper, but there's always the variable that's impossible to predict on paper.

    Human Emotional Reaction.

    And this is what's been driving this debate since the corruption system was first announced.

    I expect we will continue to see this debate go on for many many more years. I honestly don't think people are tired OF discussion of it, it's that the discussion is being done incorrectly or incompletely. And a terrible way to go about that is to compare a Faction-less PVX game, to a Faction-heavy PVE game, that dabbles in PVP. Not saying there isn't value in discussing Corruption anymore, or comparing it to other games but what I'm saying is when we look at the Corruption System, we need to stop looking at it through the lens of other MMOs, and instead see how it functions in the isolated world of AoC. Just like you cant' judge a fish on their ability to climb a tree, so too should we stop expecting the Corruption System Discussion to fix the issues we see with OTHER GAMES and instead see how it's purpose fits into Ashes of Creations game play.
    Aq0KG2f.png
  • The best bet here is to listen to players who have played with the exact same mechanic in another game. I have played with it, but Bricktop seems to be the more experienced player with it that I have seen so far.

    The corruption system works just fine, I PvP'd constantly in Lineage 2, and only went red a handful of times, mostly due to finding someone who pissed me off, alone or in a small group I could handle or get away from after I went corrupt. I would go kills a few dozen mobs afterward and work the corruption off, or I would have a clan mate kill me a few times to lose it. Both of these mechanics are in the game as well per Steven..

    I did die to the enemy once while red, and dropped my dual damascus swords (alot of in game money) but was luck enough a clanmate picked them up before they were lost.

    Point being... every time I went red.. except once, was my decision to do so. 99% of the time, the player fought back and it was off to the DPS races to see who came out on top.
  • Bored2DeathBored2Death Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    edited April 2021
    Eh just seems like a lazy to cut corners and copy paste an old system because the devs aren't creative enough to come up with something novel unless it has to do with marketing ploys. If they actually were trying to revitalize the mmo genre they would be innovating with one the most important features.
  • tautautautau Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Sign In or Register to comment.